Note To Seniors: Proposed Medicare Reform Does Not Include Plans To Kill You
Yesterday, Consumer Reports noted that an anti-health reform politician is trying to convince senior citizens that they'll be required to take lessons in euthanasia if any reform is passed. Regardless of what side you come down on with health care reform, this is flat out wrong. We care about this lie, which is still bouncing around the media, because it might interfere with the very real and useful tasks of setting up living wills and determining health care proxies—things that matter to both the elderly and the terminally ill.
Here's how it started: A few weeks ago, Betsy McCaughey, a former Lieutenant Governor of New York and the current chair of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, said into a microphone, so she knew it was going out to the public,
"Congress would make it mandatory - absolutely require - that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner [...] The bill expressly says if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period, you have to go through that session again - all to do what is in society's best interest or your family's best interest and cut your life short."
Betsy McCaughey is either stupid like a farm chicken or a very mean person, because either she truly misread the proposal (which makes her sort of unfit to be in any position of leadership, especially one concerning health care) or she is deliberately misreading it in order to terrify senior citizens for political purposes, by trying to convince them that we live in some sci-fi future where they'll be killed by an army of Obama clones. To be clear, the sci-future we do live in has cool smartphones and corporations that use the government to take advantage of private citizens, but it's not Logan's Run. If it were, I'd have already pried out my palm gems and sold them to buy more smartphones.
What the proposal does say is that for the first time ever, Medicare will be required to cover counseling about end of life topics, which is something it never paid for in the past. At minimum, it will have to pay for a session once every five years; if you're really sick, it will pay more frequently. But the sessions are up to you, obviously. The point is, the government will have to help you find out what your options are instead of leaving it up to you to foot the bill.
According to PolitiFact, a spokesman for the AARP said McCaughey's statements are "not just wrong, they are cruel. We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too."
Consumer Reports has a handy list of tips for how to make those difficult decisions when it comes to "aggressive medical care." The advice is free, politically neutral, and best of all not filled with lies. If you have a loved one who's freaked out by the Euthanasia Menace of Obama, maybe you can read through the list with them and sort out fact from fiction. Then you can make up your mind about health care reform based on the real issues, not fearmongering from idiots.
"Scaring Seniors: Reform opponents spread myths about euthanasia" [Consumer Reports Health Blog]
"Get better care, no matter where" [Consumer Reports]
"McCaughey claims end-of-life counseling will be required for Medicare patients" [PolitiFact.com]
(Photo: fffriendly)
Post a comment
Comments:
It's always scare tactics.
People who make money off the suffering of masses will never give up that ability. They'll do anything to keep that status quo.
Other countries spend less per person on health care and yet those people are still more healthy than the average American.
I'd actually prefer Medicaid be improved and expanded for all Americans.
Hopefully, before any legislation on this is passed, the bill being voted on will be readily available for a length of time appropriate for every citizen to read its entire contents and contact their representatives appropriately (like ten days and not just 24 hours). Get the facts and form educated opinions on the matter.
In this "age of transperency" on an issue so personal to each and every one of us, I don't see how this expectaion is unreasonable.
@HiPwr:
That's a good idea, although at 1100 pages, I don't know many people who will actually read it. You can barely get people to read a book anymore. They'd rather turn on the TV and believe everything that's aired on it.
@aftercancer: And there wont be any mandatory abortions for teenage bimbos either.
I like how this gets spun as "They want to kill your grand parents... AND your unborn babies... Using guns they took from you... And they will use ACORN to gather that information."
I mean seriously. There are some good arguments to be made against abortions. Why dont you focus on those, instead of telling people that Zanzibar born Obama wants to kill your babies? [I guess for one, because all the good arguments fall down to the personal level, and not policy level. Like arguments against eating the Baconator for dinner every night.]
@tbax929: I would gladly read it and offer a cliffs notes version of it. I've done so in the past. I read the stimulus bill. There are a ton of stupid things appropriated in that I bet no one read.
I'm really sad about people these days. How can people so easily believe stuff. Research should be common sense, but sadly there are still many that believe everything that is on TV.
Unfortunately this particular lie will probably be propagated even by people who know better, simply because fear tactics work.
Not that its a bad idea to let hangers-on know painless and humane methods to remove themselves from the clutches of life, mind you. Like Wiener said in 1948 of the lobotomy, "has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier."
IIRC, President Obama put down this rumor by stating that there aren't enough Government workers available to have them come to peoples homes to "send them to a farm upstate".
While the elderly won't be forced into suicide if the country adopts some of the changes proposed with health reform, they'll certainly die in the streets if the country fails to adopt those changes.
@pecan 3.14159265: So overall, what did you think of it? And what was THE one thing in it that made you go "OH MY GOD THIS IS FUCKING STUPID!!!".
@Mint137: And I mean, seriously, are you THAT gullible that you believe that the US Government wants to euthanize you? Can you imagine the mega uproar it would cause if someone actually wanted to do that?
@HiPwr: Good news: The bill is currently available in it's entirety, and is updated as changes are made online . . . . just like every other bill that's been passed for the past 10 years or so.
So yeah, long bills like that might be difficult to digest, but that's not the same as a lack of transparency.
@GitEmSteveDave_NowDoesSurnames: Hahaha. And I love Jon Stewarts take on that one "Mr President, I dont think you want to go with dry wit on this one."
And I agree. Of all the places dry wit could be applied, this probably was the worst. Second only to a rape case I would imagine.
Euthanasia Menace of Obama?
Emo?
Those damn fakers are getting into politics now? No wonder they're so concerned with death and dying.
In all seriousness though, thanks for the article Chris. I can very easily imagine my own grandmothers hearing this and getting freaked out about the whole thing, and it's good to know I can inform them that it's not at all bad.
Not to be totally off topic, but isn't the stock photo used in the caption a picture of the "most interesting man in the world" from the Dos Equis commercial?
This is a former lieutenant governor, so she knows what she's doing. And what she's doing is paying back the bountiful lobbyist $$$ that was shoveled her way.
I wonder what kind of private hell these people must go thru as they reflect that they're arguing against the simple inclusion of a Public Option to better serve their Rescission-mad, 30% Overhead-draining, medical insurance overlords. Or if they simply cackle and rub their hands, perfecting their Mr Burns eeeevil laugh impression.
I have something tacky (but funny!) to say about death counseling and people who are this cruel and stupid in furtherance of a political agenda, but I think I'll go read some Kurt Vonnegut instead until I feel better.
But how will we create soylent green?
@exconsumer9: Additionally, the only reason we are now getting a chance to look at the bill is because of the evil Republicans and "Blue Dog" Democrats hindering its passage.
Nancy, Harry, and Barack all wanted it passed at lightning speed like the so-called stimulus bill.
@MostlyHarmless: I don't remember most of it, but I do recall being baffled at money being set aside to study minimum wage increases for American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. The amount wasn't ridiculously high, but when you're trying to make every dollar stretch, you want to spend money on studying minimum wage increases?
Betsey was a real good looker but wasn't the brightest when she was Pataki's l-g. Oh well, it's all a matter of semantics, isn't it.
@MostlyHarmless: I'm wondering what's taking so long for them to say that Kim Jung Ill struck a deal with Bill Clinton to send our elderly to N Korea to work their last few years in labor camps in order to get those two leftie journalists released.
Wow, it's like Mad Libs: create your own Republican/Insurance Lobbyist Conspiracy!
@MostlyHarmless: If nothing else, these people seem to think that the Government is too inefficient to run any kind of decent health care system but would have no problem systematically going through the country and killing everyone's grandparents.
As someone who grew up in Canada, I promise that I never saw random slaughter of old people, nor do I have any first-hand knowledge of denial of care based on age.
In fact, as I recall, there was a woman named Sue Rodriguez who fought through the legal system pretty hard to be ALLOWED to die, and it was a whole big uproar. Contrary to American propaganda, Canadians do not routinely put their elderly out on ice floes, figuratively or literally.
I am aware of one case where someone extremely elderly was told by a surgeon that she wasn't a good candidate for surgery because she probably wouldn't survive the procedure (note: I said SURGEON, not the government), and she then got a second and third opinion that matched, so went south to the US and found someone who would gladly take her money and give it a go...and she died on the table.
I also had one surgeon who wouldn't operate on me because he said I was too fat. This jerk was a marathon runner, a hyper-fitness type. I went to another surgeon who said that that was a load of crap and he did the surgery.
So just because there are certain surgeons who don't want to take risks doesn't mean the whole system is going to routinely deny anyone...whereas the US system as it is denies people for basic care in order to avoid paying any large claim!
The arguments being tossed around the right-wing sites/shows are mind-bogglingly stupid and mostly outright lies. Sadly, I don't think any amount of truth-waving by CR or Consumerist or anyone else will work, because the morons who believe it only watch Fox Spews anyway.
Anyone who believes this or any crap put forth on FOX should have all voting rights taken away. The Daily Show a couple days ago had a good piece on how FOX and the RNC takes their own talking points and turns them into "facts"... Thanks Ronald Reagan for getting rid of the "Fairness Doctrine" that would nullify some of the fecal waste put out buy the scum of our society.
Addendum... it sounds like I meant this was said on FOX... while I'd bet they're are or will further this message, I do know they weren't responsible of the original one AFAIK...
@utensil42: Thank goodness we can count on government efficiency when it comes time for the mass killings.
I don't know if I should end that with /sarcasm.
@HiPwr: All bills are available for public perusal before they are passed. Someone above notes that they read the stimulus bill before it was passed, too. Do you have some reason to think this bill is being handled differently?
@NatalieErin: I guess no reason in particular, but a guy can believe what he wants to believe. Whether or not theres a reason to think that way.
@NatalieErin: An overnight availability is not what I would call adequate.
Fortunately yes, this bill is being handled differently, but only because the people in power weren't able to ram it through like stimulus.
Obama said:
"But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
I don't feel comfortable having government panels telling my doc if I should or should not have that surgery. Government should have NO hand in that decision.
@rellog321: If there was a Fairness Doctrine, conservatives would have MUCH more coverage since all networks, most newspapers, and most cable news is all liberal. It's a marketplace of ideas- if you don't like something, TURN IT OFF.
"stupid like a farm chicken" is now my favorite phrase ever.
@JAG42: So instead you are happier with insurance companies making that decision? You trust them more? Because I think they care more about their shareholders than your health.
@KLETCO: But I am paying and if I don't like it I have recourse. If Gov program denies you are screwed. I agree, reform needs to be made but not a complete transformation! Some things that would help the insurance climate:
Let companies cross state lines to write policies.
Let companies write "ala carte" policies to include exactly what you want such as catastrophic only.
Also, torte reform is needed badly but none is done b/c the trial lawyers contribute so much to Democrats to not change this.
75% of people are happy with their current programs and "47 Million" without healthcare is a misnomer because it's premise is that all of them want it. NOT TRUE. A third of them voluntarily don't get it. A third qualify for existing programs. Some are illegal. The true number is about 12 million on the high side.
How can we be sure that AARP and Consumer Reports aren't hedging/lying either? I know AARP is a huge supporter of the public option and thus will try to sugar coat any unpalatable provision to make it sound great.
The underlying issue here is that the public option will eventually evolve to single payer; Barney Frank has said as much, Obama himself said he wanted to see it (2003 @ AFLCIO conference, 2007 @ SEIU conference), video here ([www.breitbart.tv]). The reason is because when the government becomes a "competitor," it also is able to write the rules. It also does not need to turn a profit and can operate in the red indefinitely without the need to file bankruptcy like a traditional business.
Kletco above asked why we would want to trust our insurance policies with decisions. Well, if the insurance company says no, we can sue them and potentially get them to pay for the care.
The better question is, why on EARTH would you trust ANY politician with your health care decisions? I happen to distrust Democrats. A lot of people here distrust Republicans. Well, one day the Republicans will be back in power and would you want THEM making important decisions regarding your care?
Something to think about.
@kaceetheconsumer: LOL. Some version of how the taxpayers will happily provide HER with mandatory death counseling and euthanasia lessons, but with a clever pun included or an ironic twist on the words. I don't remember exactly how I was going to phrase it, but it was mean! You can insert it yourself.
(Or even: *|IRONIC_MANDATORY_EUTHANASIA_LESSONS_FOR_DISINGENUOUS_ POLITICIAN_STATEMENT|*)
@zaxour: Sue them???? When? After you're dead? Most medical decisions cannot wait for a lawsuit to take place for treatment. And most people do not have the resources to come up with the money up front to get the care while it is sorted out.
Members of Congress and the President of the United States aren't required to read the bill or actually know what's in it.
Why should pundits or former politicians or anyone who just feels like shouting be held to a different standard?
Her "lie" isn't any more of a lie than people who claim that this plan will cover everyone without any element of rationing and without your taxes going up one dime.
Thanks for publicizing this. I am sick and tired of out and out lies being put out there by people with a personal agenda and no one calling them on them. These are lies! Old people are not going to be killed, cancer patients are not going to be told they can't have treatment and illegal immigrants are not going to be covered by this plan. Whew, that feels better!